FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 22 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16007 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -003 07 -C V -D F -5 D A N N Y J . H I C K S , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O E F E R R E R O , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts , R A L P H B A T T L E , J I M M Y S I K E S , A R T H U R R . G O R D O N , J A M E S T A Y L O R , D efen d an t s-A p p el l an t s.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 22, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es.Ralph Battle is the warden of the prison; Arthur Gordon is the deputy

warden of the 1 prison; J immy

Sikes is the reg ional direc tor for theGeorg ia Depa rtment of Corre ctions; and J ames Ta ylor is the health ser

vices administrator f

or the prison. Th e sea pp e lla ntsalsoa pp e al th edenial of

the ir summa ry judgment m oti on

on themerits 2 of Hi c ks ’sretaliatio n c laim. We c on c lude , h ow e ver, that w ela c k ju ri sdic tio n toc on side r t

his pendent c laim beca

use it is not “inex tricably intertwined”with the qualified immunity question. See Hu ds on v . H

all , 231 F.3d 1289, 1293- 94 (11th Cir. 2000). We pause to note that even if the tw o c laims were“ ine xtri c a bly int e rt wine d, ”wewo uld

de c lin eto e xerc iseour discretio n to consider this merits-ba sed claim. See Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n , 514 U.S. 35, 51, 115 S. Ct . 1203, 1212 (1995). 2 P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l ant s R al ph B att l e, A rthu r G ordo n, Ji m m y S i kes, and Jam es T ay l or, s ta te p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls , ap p e a l in te r lo c u to r ily th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rd e n y in g th e ir

1 de f e ns e of qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty on i nm a t e D a nny H i c ks ’ s F i r s tA m e ndm e nt r e ta lia tio n c la im . H ic k s a lle g e d th a t th e s e p r is o n o f f ic ia ls r e ta lia te d a g a in s t h im 2 f o rf ilin g g r ie v a n c e s o v e rp r is o n c o n d itio n s a n d m e d ic a l c a r e . We r e v i e w de no vo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of s um m a ry j udgm e nton qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty gr ounds , vi e w i ng the f a c t s i n a l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the p la in tif f . B oz e m an v . O r um , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 5 , 1 2 6 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . P ro se p le a d in g s a r e e n title d to lib e r a l c o n s tru c tio n . D rew v. D ep ’t o f C o rrs. , 297 F . 3d 12 78 , 12 85 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). “Q u a lif ie d im m u n ity o f

f e r s c o m p le te p r o te c tio n f o rg o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia ls s u e d in th e irin d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s if th e irc o n d u c t ‘d o e s n o t v io la te c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d s ta tu to ry o rc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts o f w h ic h a r e a s o n ab le p e r s o n w o u ld3

have kn ow n. ’ ” V

i ny ar d v . W

i l s on , 311 F . 3d 1340, 1346 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng H a r lo w v . F itz

g e r a ld , 4 5 7 U .S . 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 , 1 0 2 S . C t. 2 7 2 7 , 2 7 3 8 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ) . A publ i c of

f i c i a l , i n or de rt o r e c e i ve qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty , “ m us tf

i r s tpr ove tha t‘ he w a s a c t i ng w i thi n the s c ope of hi s di s c r e t i ona ry a uthor i ty w he n the al l egedl y w rong ful ac t s occ urre d. ’ ” L ee v. Ferra ro , 2 8 4 F .3 d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 4 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 02 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). A pu bl i c off i ci al i s notent i t l ed t o q ual i fi ed im m u n ity if

h e o rs h e w a s a c tin g o u ts id e o f h is o rh e rd is c r e tio n a ry a u th o r ity . I d. H ow e ve r , w he r e , a s he r e , i ti s undi s put e d tha tgove rnm e ntof f i c i a l s w e r e a c t i ng w ith in th e ird is c r e tio n a ry a u th o r ity , th e b u r d e n is o n th e p la in tif f to d e m o n s tr a te th a t q u a lif

ie d im m u n ity is n o t ap p r o p r ia te . D alr y m pl e v . R e no , 334 F . 3d 991, 995 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T he S up re m e C ou rthas r ec og ni ze d a tw o-pron ged t es tt o d et erm i ne w hether q u a lif ie d im m u n ity is ap p r o p r ia te . A c o u r t m u s t f ir s t a d d r e s s th e th r e s h o ld que s t i on of

w he the r , t a ke n i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the pa r ty a s s e r t i ng the in ju ry , th e f

a c ts a lle g e d s h o w th e o f f ic e r ’s c o n d u c t v io la te d a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. Sa u c ie rv . Ka tz , 53 3 U . S . 19 4, 20 1, 12 1 S . C t . 21 51 , 21 56 (200 1). If a c ou rt a ns w e r s thi s thr e s hol d que s t i on a f f i r m a t i ve l y , the n i tm us tc ons i de rw he the rthe c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t w a s “c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d ” in th e s p e c if ic c o n te x t o f

th e c a s e . I

d.

“ T h e F i rstA m en d m en tfo rb i d s p ri so n o ffi ci al s fro m ret al i at i n g ag ai n st4

pri soners for e xerc i si ng the ri gh tof fr ee spee ch. ” Fa rro w v. W est , 320 F . 3d 1235, 1 2 4 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T o p r e v a il o n a r e ta lia tio n c la im , a p r is o n e rm a y s h o w th a t: ( 1) he e nga ge d i n pr ot e c t e d e xpr e s s i on; ( 2) he s uf f e r e d a n a dve r s e a c t i on; a nd ( 3 ) th e a d v e r s e a c tio n w a s c a u s a lly r e la te d to th e p r o te c te d e x p r e s s io n . See Hi gdon v . J ac k s on , 3 9 3 F . 3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( i n th e c o n t e x to f a n AD A r e ta lia tio n c la im ) ; se e a l so Stav r opoul os v . F i r e s tone , 36 1 F . 3d 61 0, 61 9 (11 th C i r. 20 04 ) ( di sc ussi ng the i nt erpl ay betw ee n § 19 83 re t al i at i on ca se s a nd T i t l e V II r e t a l i a t i on c a s e s ) . “ A pr i s one rc a n e s t abl i s h r e t a l i a t i on by de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe pr i s on of f i c i a l ’ s a c t i ons w e r e ‘ the r e s ul tof hi s ha vi ng f

i l e d a gr i e va nc e c onc e rni ng the cond i t i on s of hi s i m pri sonm ent . ’ ” Far r ow , 320 F . 3d a t1248 ( quot i ng W ildb e r g e rv . B r a c kn e ll , 8 6 9 F .2 d 1 4 6 7 , 1 4 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ) .

“ [S ] up ervi sory offi ci al s a re no tl i abl e und er§ 1 98 3 for the un const i tut i on al a c t s of the i rs ubor di na t e s ‘ on the ba s i s of r e s ponde a ts upe r i ororvi c a r i ous l i abi l i ty. ’ ” H

a r tle y v . P a r n e ll , 193 F . 3d 1263, 1269 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . R a the r , s upe r vi s orl i abi l i ty onl y c a n be e s t abl i s he d w he n: ( 1) the s upe r vi s orpe r s ona l l y pa r t i c i pa t e d i n the a l l e ge d c ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on, or (2) there w as a c ausa l conn ec t i on betw ee n the supervi sor’ s a ct i on s a nd the al l eged c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . I d.

“ T he causal conn ec t i on ca n b e e st abl i shed w hen a hi st ory of w i despre adThe re cord on a ppeal demonstrates that Hicks doe s not alleg e that Sikes and Ta ylor 3 were per sonally

involved in raisinghis security level or that Sikes and Taylor filed neg ative repor ts on him, nor is thereany evidenc e to support such c ontentions. W e note that, a s to the ne g ativ erepo rt s, Hi c ks alle g e d in hisc omp laint

tha t unidenti fi e d “ c ouns e lor s”fi le d th e se repor ts, but S ikes was a

supervisor, not a c ounselor. Ta ylor is the health ser

vices administrator at B os tic k Priso n, no t a

c ouns e lor . A lso , H ic ks did no t ide nti fy

Sike s o r T aylor

duringhis deposition as prison officials who filed frivolous reports on him. Moreover , even when construed in a

light most favorable to Hicks, thefac ts alleg ed do not show a “widespre ad” a nd “ ob vious ”his tor

y of priso n o ff

ic ials raisinginm ate s’ se c urity le ve ls o r p repa

ringfalserepo rt s in retaliation for filinggrieva nces. Hartley , 193 F.3d at 1269. Accordingly, we c onclude that Hicks has f

ailed to establish the possibility of super visory liability here , and, thus, he ha s not shown that Sikes or Tay

lor violated a c learly

established constitutional right. See Saucier , 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S. Ct . at 2156. 5 abuse put s the re spon si bl e s up ervi sor on n ot i ce of the need t o correc tthe al l eged depri vat i on , and h e f

ai l s t o d o so. ” I

d. M oreover, “ [t ] he depri vat i on s that c ons t i tut e w i de s pr e a d abus e s uf f i c i e ntt o not i f

y the s upe r vi s i ng of

f i c i a l m us tbe ob vi ou s, fl agra nt , ra m pantand o f c on t i nu ed du ra t i on , ra ther than i sol at ed occurre nces . ” I

d. A ddi t i ona l l y , “ the c a us a l c onne c t i on m a y be e s t abl i s he d a nd supervi sory l i abi l i ty i m po se d w here the supervi sor’ s i m prop er‘ cust om or po l i cy

. . . re sul t [s ] i n d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence t o con st i tut i on al ri gh t s. ’ ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). A ft erre vi ew i ng the re cord and readi ng the part i es ’ bri ef s, w e c on cl ud e that th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly f o u n d th a t B a ttle a n d G o r d o n w e r e n o t e n title d to qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty, bu tw e vac at e a nd re m and w i th res pectt o S i kes a nd T ay l or, co n cl u d i n g th atth ey w ere en t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty o n H i ck s’ s F i rst A me n d me n tc l a i m. 36

V i ew ed i n a l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o H i cks, the fa ct s a l l eged es t abl i sh that B a tt l e a nd G or don vi ol a t e d H i c ks ’ s f r e e s pe e c h r i ght s by r e t a l i a t i ng a ga i ns thi m f or f ilin g g r ie v a n c e s o v e rp r is o n c o n d itio n s . See B oz e m an , 422 F . 3d a t1267. H i c ks f i l e d hi s f i r s tgr i e va nc e i n J une 2003, a nd w i thi n one m onth B a tt l e a nd G or don r e t a l i a t e d b y r a i s i n g h i s s e c u r i ty l e v e l f r o m mi n i mu m t o me d i u m. M o r e o v e r , B a ttle a n d G o r d o n m a d e th is d e c is io n d e s p ite th e f a c t th a t: (a) H i ck s’ s secu ri ty l ev el h ad b een setatm i n i m u m fo r ap p ro x i m at el y th i rty years, f r om 1976 unt i l 2003; ( b) pr i s on of f i c i a l s ha d r e vi e w e d H i c ks ’ s f i l e i n 2002 a nd had recom m ended t hathi s s ec uri ty l evel re m ai n atthi s l evel ; (c ) he had a thi rt ee n ye arcl ea n rec ord; and (d) B att l e a nd G ordo n con si dere d the sa m e f ac t ors p re su m ab ly co n sid er ed in all o f th e p re v io u s a n n u al re v iew s – th e n atu re o f H ick s’s of f e ns e s , hi s s e nt e nc e s , hi s a tt e m pt e d pr i s on e s c ape i n 1978, the s e c ur i ty m i s s i on o f th e p r is o n , a n d th e p h y s ic a l s e c u r ity lim ita tio n s o f th e p r is o n . A c c or di ngl y , the s e f

a c t s , i f pr ove n true , de m ons tr a t e a F i r s tA m e ndm e nt vi ol at i on . H i cks w as engaged i n a prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty ( fr ee spee ch); he suff er ed an advers e a ct i on (hi s s ec uri ty l evel w as ra i se d); and t he ra i si ng of hi s s ec uri ty l evel w a s c a u s a lly r e la te d to h im f ilin g g r ie v a n c e s . See Hi gdon , 3 9 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 9 . F u rth er m o re , a re as o n ab le p riso n o ff icial stan d in g in B attl e o r G o rd o n ’s s hoe s s houl d ha ve r e a l i z e d a tthe t i m e tha the m a de the r e t a l i a t ory de c i s i on tha the7

w as vi ol at i ng a c l ea rl y e st abl i shed const i tut i on al ri gh t . W e c on cl ud ed as ea rl y a s 1989 – w e l l be f

or e thi s de c i s i on w a s m a de – tha ta pr i s one r ’ s F i r s tA m e ndm e nt f r e e s pe e c h r i ght s a r e vi ol a t e d w he n pr i s on of f i c i a l s r e t a l i a t e a ga i ns thi m orhe rf or f ilin g a g r ie v a n c e . See W i ldb er ger , 8 6 9 F .2 d a t 1 4 6 8 . In concl usi on , w e a ff

i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of qu al i fi ed i m m un i ty a s to B a ttle a n d G o r d o n , b u t v a c a te a n d r e m a n d w ith r e s p e c t to S ik e s a n d T a y lo r . S i k es an d T ayl o r w ere en t i t l ed t o q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty i n th ei r i n d i v i d u al cap aci t i es, because the fa ct s a l l eged, even i f ul t i m at el y proven t rue, do no tshow thatthey v io la te d a c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.